Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 309 views

    Hotfile's Motion in Limine To Preclude Use of Pejorative Terms PDF

    Uploaded by

    Devlin Hartline
    In this document, the defendants in a copyright infringement case filed a motion in limine to prevent the plaintiffs from using pejorative terms like "piracy", "theft", and "stealing" when referring to the defendants or their actions, as the defendants had only been found liable for vicarious infringement and not direct infringement. The defendants argued such terms would be unduly prejudicial under Rule 403. The plaintiffs declined to agree to refrain from using such terms.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Hotfile's Motion in Limine To Preclude Use of Pejorative Terms PDF

    Uploaded by

    Devlin Hartline
    309 views4 pages
    In this document, the defendants in a copyright infringement case filed a motion in limine to prevent the plaintiffs from using pejorative terms like "piracy", "theft", and "stealing" when referring to the defendants or their actions, as the defendants had only been found liable for vicarious infringement and not direct infringement. The defendants argued such terms would be unduly prejudicial under Rule 403. The plaintiffs declined to agree to refrain from using such terms.

    Original Description:

    Hotfile objects to the use of pejoratives such as "piracy," "theft," and "stealing."

    Original Title

    Hotfile's Motion in Limine to Preclude Use of Pejorative Terms.pdf

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    In this document, the defendants in a copyright infringement case filed a motion in limine to prevent the plaintiffs from using pejorative terms like "piracy", "theft", and "stealing" when referring to the defendants or their actions, as the defendants had only been found liable for vicarious infringement and not direct infringement. The defendants argued such terms would be unduly prejudicial under Rule 403. The plaintiffs declined to agree to refrain from using such terms.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    309 views4 pages

    Hotfile's Motion in Limine To Preclude Use of Pejorative Terms PDF

    Uploaded by

    Devlin Hartline
    In this document, the defendants in a copyright infringement case filed a motion in limine to prevent the plaintiffs from using pejorative terms like "piracy", "theft", and "stealing" when referring to the defendants or their actions, as the defendants had only been found liable for vicarious infringement and not direct infringement. The defendants argued such terms would be unduly prejudicial under Rule 403. The plaintiffs declined to agree to refrain from using such terms.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    Case 1:11-cv-20427-KMW Document 574 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2013 Page 1 of 4

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 11-20427-WILLIAMS/TURNOFF

    DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC., TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION, UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS LLLP, COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC., and WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., Plaintiffs, v. HOTFILE CORP., ANTON TITOV, and DOES 1-10. Defendants. ____________________________________/ HOTFILE CORP., Counterclaimant, v. WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., Counterdefendant. ____________________________________/ DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE USE OF THE PEJORATIVE TERMS PIRACY, THEFT, AND STEALING (AND THEIR DERIVITIVES) WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW In the present case, where the Court has previously held that the Defendants could not be held liable for direct copyright infringement, but could be found liable for vicarious infringement, the Defendants seek to preclude the Plaintiffs use of pejorative (and unduly prejudicial) terms such as pirate, piracy, theft, thieves, and stealing in reference to the Defendants or their founders. In support of this Motion, the Defendants state as follows. 1

    Case 1:11-cv-20427-KMW Document 574 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2013 Page 2 of 4

    The Plaintiffs have declined to stipulate that they will refrain from the use of the terms pirates or thieves with respect to the Defendants or the founders of Hotfile, nor would they refrain from referring to those individuals as having engaged in theft or stealing. Such derogatory comments fall well within the purview of Rule 403, which precludes the admission of evidence which is significantly more prejudicial than it is probative.1 See, e.g., Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 743 F. Supp. 2d 762, 773 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (granting motion in limine to preclude the use of terms such as monopoly, milking strategy, and milking the brand as being irrelevant and unduly prejudicial under Rule 403); Engman v. City of Ontario, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66128 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (granting motion in limine to preclude the use of the terms code of silence, wall of blue, and testilying stating that, the Court will not permit plaintiffs witnesses to use pejorative terminology regarding police practices); Shepard v. Bass, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174741, 5-6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012) (If testimony regarding the Code of Silence, Green Wall, or Green Wall Corcoran Sharks was to be admitted during the trial, it would serve to cause confusion on the issues to be decided in this action and mislead the jury. Presentation of such evidence would create a trial within the trial and would waste the time of the jury and the Court. Finally, the proposed testimony would likely result in unfair prejudice against Defendant Bass.). In the present case, there is no evidence that the Defendants (or Hotfiles founders) are pirates or thieves, nor is there evidence that they were stealing or engaged in piracy or theft. Even if the Defendants had been found to have directly infringed on the Plaintiffs copyrights, such derogatory terms would add nothing to the Plaintiffs case, but would serve to improperly inflame the jury. Where, as here, the trial involves only vicarious liability the use
    1

    Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403, [t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

    Case 1:11-cv-20427-KMW Document 574 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2013 Page 3 of 4

    of such terms would be even more improper. Accordingly, the Court should preclude the Plaintiffs use of terms such as pirate, piracy, theft, thieves, and stealing in reference to the Defendants or their founders. CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH CONFERENCE I hereby certify that prior to filing this Motion, counsel for Defendants, Evan FrayWitzer, Esq., conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs, Luke C. Platzer, Esq., in a good faith effort to resolve this motion by agreement, but was unable to do so.

    /s/ Evan Fray-Witzer Evan Fray-Witzer Respectfully submitted: /s/ Valentin Gurvits Valentin D. Gurvits (# 643572 - pro hac vice) Matthew Shayefar (# 685927 - pro hac vice) BOSTON LAW GROUP, PC 825 Beacon Street, Suite 20 Newton Centre, MA 02459 Telephone: (617) 928-1804 Facsimile: (617) 928-1802 [email protected] [email protected] /s/ BRADY J. COBB_______ BRADY J. COBB, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 031018 COBB EDDY MIJARES, PLLC 642 Northeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304 Telephone (954) 527-4111 Facsimile (954) 900-5507 [email protected] /s/ Evan Fray-Witzer Evan Fray-Witzer (# 564349 - pro hac vice) CIAMPA FRAY-WITZER, LLP 20 Park Plaza, Suite 505 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 426-0000 Facsimile: (617) 423-4855 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served electronically via the CM/ECF electronic filing system on all counsel or parties of record on the attached service list this 28th day of October, 2013. /s/ Brady J. Cobb Brady J. Cobb 3

    Case 1:11-cv-20427-KMW Document 574 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2013 Page 4 of 4

    SERVICE LIST: CASE NO: 11-20427-CIV-WILLIAMS Counsel for Plaintiffs: JENNER & BLOCK LLP Steven B. Fabrizio (Pro Hac Vice) [email protected] Luke C. Platzer (Pro Hac Vice) [email protected] David A. Handzo (Pro Hac Vice) [email protected] 1099 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202.639.6000 Fax: 202.639.6066 GRAY-ROBINSON, P.A. Karen L. Stetson [email protected] 1221 Brickell Avenue Suite 1600 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305.416.6880 Fax: 305.416.6887 Counsel for Defendants: BOSTON LAW GROUP, PC Valentin Gurvits [email protected] Matthew Shayefar [email protected] 825 Beacon Street, Suite 20 Newton Centre, MA 02459 Phone: 617-928-1804 CIAMPA FRAY-WITZER, LLP Evan Fray-Witzer [email protected] 20 Park Plaza, Suite 804 Boston, MA 02116 Phone:617-426-0000 COBB EDDY MIJARES PLLC Brady J. Cobb [email protected] 642 Northeast Third Ave. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33305 Phone: 954-527-4111, ext 201 Karen R. Thorland, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice) Senior Content Protection Counsel Email: [email protected] Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. 15301 Ventura Boulevard, Building E Sherman Oaks, CA 91403-5885 Phone: 818.935.5812

    You might also like